wp_preview_terrain_edit

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses non-mutation ('Does not write a .world file') and the ephemeral nature of the returned token ('one-time preview_id'). It still omits where the PNGs are written, how long they persist, and whether a pre-existing plan is required.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the primary purpose and the key negative constraint both front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still previews the PNG outputs and preview_id token. For a single-parameter, non-destructive tool it is nearly sufficient; only the provenance of plan_id and the lifetime of the preview artifacts are missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only one parameter (plan_id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only source of meaning. 'For a plan' hints the id references a plan, but it never says the id comes from wp_plan_terrain_edit or what format it takes, leaving the one input only half-explained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Generate) plus the concrete artifacts produced (before/after/delta PNGs, a preview_id) and scopes it to a plan. The closing clause 'Does not write a .world file' sharply distinguishes it from the write-path sibling wp_apply_terrain_plan without needing to name it.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'for a plan' and the non-writing clause make the usage context clear: this is the inspect-first step before committing an edit. It stops short of explicitly naming wp_apply_terrain_plan or wp_plan_terrain_edit as the prerequisites/alternatives, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.